Is steel now a product of confusion?

Key members of Congress are tangling with the Pentagon over the interpretation of the single word “produced.”

At stake is the protection of thousands of U.S. troops abroad — and thousands of jobs in the steel industry at home.

Story Continued Below

“The American military should be protected by American steel,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who’s eager for every job he can keep or create in his state.

“We have seen too many industries like steel and manufacturing dwindle, and too many people have lost their jobs to foreign companies,” he said in a statement.

Several dozen members — Democrats and Republicans, in both the House and the Senate — have been bombarding the Defense Department with personal appeals, urging officials to reconsider the definition of “produced” as it relates to the acquisition of steel armor plate, a specialty metal used in Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, to protect U.S. forces from improvised roadside bombs that have wreaked havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2011 National Defense Authorization Act called on the Pentagon to review its definition and consider whether it complies with congressional intent — a process that’s now under way.

The sticking point dates back two years, when the department broadened its interpretation to allow the use of armor plate steel that was melted in China, Mexico and Russia, among other countries.

Previously, armor plate suppliers were required to have the specialty metal steel melted domestically — or in one of 21 countries with which the United States has a reciprocal defense procurement agreement, such as Canada and Israel. But in 2009, the department issued a rule that defined specialty metals “produced” domestically as those that undergo just the final steps of the manufacturing process — cooling and heat treating — in the United States.

To U.S. steelmakers, this represented a major shift: Armor plate could now be melted abroad.

Steel industry executives and their allies in Congress were left fuming and have since mounted an aggressive effort to persuade the Pentagon to scrap its new interpretation and return to the days when “Made in the U.S.A.” meant exactly that, from start to finish. The new rule, they argue, bucks decades of precedent and threatens to erode a domestic industry that’s key to U.S. security.

“Melting is the most capital-intensive phase of steelmaking, and we do it better in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world,” Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus, told POLITICO in a written statement. “If the Defense Department goes ahead and bends the law to allow steel melting to be performed outside the country, the Pentagon is not only weakening the very industrial base we need during times of war but purchasing a lower-quality product.”